Take It Hot-To-Go: The Tumbler Heat Retention Test

Method

1

We filled 20 tumblers with filter coffee from a well-known coffee chain that also sells donuts. We also filled one of their standard paper cups as a control.
2

We took the temperature of the coffee inside each tumbler every 15 minutes, using one of those thermometers that has a fold-out metal probe.
3

We took a photo of us doing that.
4

We did that for 2.5 hours.

A photo of three tumblers with clear lids. One is patterned like wood, one like marble, and one is grey. They sit on a wooden desk next to a pair of black sunglasses.

That’s about it! You can see all the photos below. Yes, that’s really my hand! Oh the glamor.

Flipbook

Results

All of our tumblers performed better than the paper cup, but there were some clear winners. Here are the units of measurement we used:

A photo of a white coffee cup on a brown saucer, sitting on a pale wood table against a dark wood background. There is a thermometer sticking into the coffee.

Percentage of Starting Temperature Lost (aka Loss Percentage)

We looked at how much heat each tumbler lost as a percentage of the temperature they started at. So if a tumbler started at 200F and ended at 150F, it would have lost 50F, which is 25% of the heat it started with: (50F/200F) x 100 = 25%

I’m going to shorten this to “loss percentage.”

A photo of a pile of $100 bills on a smooth orange background.

Cost Efficiency Score

We also wanted to give each tumbler a rating that incorporated both its effectiveness at retaining heat and its cost. So we came up with the Cost Efficiency Score. This was calculated by multiplying the tumbler’s loss percentage (the one we just talked about) by its current cost. This allowed us to get a better sense of a tumbler’s true value.

Say you have two tumblers, one that costs $15 and one that costs $5. Both of them have a loss percentage of 25% – i.e. they both decrease in temperature by 25% during the course of the experiment. Everything else being equal, you’d rather buy the $5 one than the $15 one, because you’re getting the same heat retention for less money.

This is reflected in their Cost Efficiency Scores. The $5 one has a Cost Efficiency Score of 5 x 25 = 125. The $15 one has a Cost Efficiency Score of 15 x 25 = 375. The lower value means you’re spending less and losing less heat.

A photo of a black tumbler with YOUR DESIGN HERE printed in white on the front. It’s sitting on a grey surface next to a phone, a plant, and a salt lamp.

Well, sort of. Think about this as a balancing act, rather than an absolute score. The extreme ends of the Cost Efficiency Score spectrum represent worse value: Cheap tumblers that may not retain heat well on the lowest end, and tumblers that retain heat well but are significantly more expensive on the higher end.

The ideal is in the middle – the Goldilocks zone – where the Cost Efficiency Scores are balanced by price. We identified 11 of our 20 tumblers as fitting in this range, with scores from 295 to 486. It doesn’t mean that the other nine don’t have merits, just that they involve compromise in the form of a high price or poor heat retention.

Temperature Change

We also looked at how much the temperature dropped in each of our tumblers over the course of our experiment. Here are the three best and the three worst-performing tumblers:

20 TUMBLERS TESTED Here’s the best 3 and the worst 3

Q70144
Thor Copper
Insulated Bottle

1st Place

Least Change
-32.5° F
Q94373
Stanley Quencher
H2.0 Tumbler

2nd Place

Total Change
-32.6° F
Q90739
Intrepid Stainless
Steel Tumbler

3rd Place

Total Change
-34.4° F

Q72526
Derby Sports
Mug

18th Place

Total Change
-63.3° F
065317
Koozie Triple
Vacuum Tumbler

19th Place

Total Change
-68.9° F
Q82595
Eco-Friendly Wheat
Travel Mug

20th Place

Most Change
-71.2° F

Key Takeaways

A photo of a smiling woman holding a tumbler printed with a wood pattern, with YOUR DESIGN HERE printed in black on the front. She is sitting in a wicker chair with white cushions.

Stainless Steel Wins the Day

Our top 14 tumblers (based on loss percentage) were all made of stainless steel. You can’t beat that double-walled insulation – and if you saw our tumbler toughness test, you’ll know it’s pretty durable too.

A photo of two people holding large tumblers with straws. One is red, one is grey, both are printed with YOUR DESIGN HERE on the front.

Stanley Got Pushed Into Second Place

Anyone who’s spent more than 30 seconds on the internet in the last year will have recognized the most famous tumbler in our test, Stanley. This tough cup was the one to beat – and one tumbler managed to do it, although only by one percentage point.

A photo of three tumblers on a white surface. One is blue, one is red, one is orange, and all are printed with YOUR DESIGN HERE. There’s a plant in the background.

Our Starting Temps Varied

It’s hard to fill 20 tumblers and a paper cup in 10 minutes when you’re working with boxes of coffee. Try it, go on! All of our tumblers started the test with liquid above the recommended drinking temperature of 130F – but the lowest was at 130.8F and the highest 171.5F. Oops. This is why we’re focusing on how much the temperature changed, rather than comparing final temperatures.

A photo of a man sitting on a wooden bench holding a white and silver tumbler with a straw, and YOUR DESIGN HERE printed in black on the front.

These Tumblers Might be More Effective Than This

The lids remained screwed on throughout the experiment, but the sip holes were open. (There has to be another name for them, but you know what I mean – the hole you sip through.) So if you’re impressed by these results, remember that the tumblers would potentially be even more effective at retaining heat with these fully closed.

A photo of a person holding a blue tumbler with a white lid, with YOUR DESIGN HERE printed in white on the front. The photo is cropped to show just their arm and torso.

A Low Price Means Poorer Heat Retention

Overall, our cheapest tumblers performed worst. Our six cheapest tumblers were among the eight tumblers with the highest loss percentages. That doesn’t mean that you need to spend a lot to get an effective tumbler; but if you’re spending around $5 or less, don’t expect it to perform as well as even slightly more expensive options.

Your Tumbler Buying Guide

All this science is great, but let’s cut to the chase: What does it tell us about the tumbler you should actually buy? Here’s what to shop for based on your priorities.

A photo of a sky blue powder-coated metal water bottle with YOUR DESIGN HERE in black on the front vertically. The background is pastel blue and pink.

The Best in Class

Thor Copper Insulated Bottle (Q70144)

The Thor’s loss percentage was the lowest in the test: 21%, just beating our celebrity entrant the Stanley Quencher’s 22%. The Thor also showed the lowest overall temperature change, beating the Stanley Quencher by 0.1F.

It’s a winner on price, too. As of writing, the Thor is under $20 per tumbler, compared to over $50 for the Stanley. This is reflected in the two tumblers’ Cost Efficiency Scores. The Thor’s score of 339 puts it bang in the middle of the Goldilocks zone, while the Stanley’s hefty price tag put it third from bottom with 1,149.

A photo of a dark blue metal tumbler with a clear lid and YOUR DESIGN HERE in silver on the front. The background is pastel blue and pink.

The Sweet Spot for Heat Retention and Price

Emperor Vacuum Tumbler (Q63639)

The Emperor had the lowest Cost Efficiency Score of the Goldilocks tumblers, reflecting a favorable balance of low price and low loss percentage. It was in a four-way tie for fourth-lowest loss percentage (30%) and was the cheapest of the four. That included the CamelBak, which as of right now costs over $35 more per tumbler than the Emperor.

A photo of a bright blue tumbler with a black handle and straw, and a clear plastic lid. YOUR DESIGN HERE is printed in white on the front.

If You Drink a Lot of Coffee Very Slowly

Intrepid Stainless Steel Tumbler (Q90739)

The Intrepid holds 40oz – the most of any tumbler in our test. Our American coffee chain connoisseurs will recognize that as two large hot Dunkin’ coffees or two hot venti Starbucks coffees. And it still had the third-lowest overall loss percentage, at 23%, which is only 2% off from the leader. Freshly brewed coffee is around 200F, so based on our results, you can pour that in this tumbler and it should still be hovering at a more than reasonable 154F after 2.5 hours.

A photo of a large black tumbler with a straw and WANDERLUST travel printed in silver sans-serif font and cursive on the front.

The Winner in the Battle of the Brands

Stanley Quencher Tumbler (Q94373)

Those who believe the brand name on their tumbler should be as hot as the coffee will be interested to know that the much-coveted Stanley Quencher had the second-lowest loss percentage of all our tumblers. Meanwhile, the CamelBak came a respectable joint fourth for loss percentage, although that put it behind and tied with some much cheaper options. The Koozie’s loss percentage was well above average: It lost 40% of its starting heat. However, the Yeti’s high price tag and middling loss percentage (36%) gave it the lowest Cost Efficiency Score in the whole test – a whopping 1,400.

If Your Budget Per Tumbler Is:

A photo of three tumblers on a blue graphic wave background. The left tumbler is large and dark blue, with a black straw and handle. The middle tumbler is black with a clear lid. The right tumbler is silver with red plastic bottom and grip. All three have YOUR DESIGN HERE on the front.

$5: Insulated Steel Travel Mug (Q70190)

Of the four tumblers in our test that currently cost less than $5, the Insulated Steel Travel Mug had the lowest overall loss percentage (40%). This in combination with its low cost – the second lowest in our test – gives it the lowest overall Cost Efficiency Score, of 153. In short, of all the budget options, this one has the best heat retention.

$10: Emperor Vacuum Tumbler (Q63639)

As we mentioned already, the Emperor hits the sweet spot for low price and good heat retention. Another top 10 option currently in this price bracket is the York Tumbler with Cork Base (Q84536). This one had the same loss percentage as the Yeti (36%) but holds twice as much and costs approximately 4x less.

$15: Intrepid Stainless Steel Tumbler (Q90739)

Three of the four tumblers in the $10 to $15 range made it into the top 8 for lowest loss percentage. All of the tumblers currently in this price bracket fall within our Goldilocks zone for Cost Efficiency Score. But the Intrepid was the most impressive, claiming third place for loss percentage behind the Stanley in second. It costs a fraction of the price of the Stanley (around $15 per tumbler, compared to more than $50), only lost 1% more of its original heat, and holds an additional 10oz.

Over $15: Thor Copper Insulated Bottle (Q70144)

A higher price tag didn’t always correlate with higher heat retention in our test. The Thor was our overall winner in terms of lowest loss percentage and lowest temperature change, and it currently costs far less than, say, the Stanley, CamelBak, or Yeti. These all ended up with Cost Efficiency Scores in the 1000s, compared to the Thor’s 339.

If Size Matters:

Best Small Tumbler (<15oz)

Yeti Rambler Tumbler (Q77977)

If you only go by loss percentage, the Yeti wins in this size category, coming in bang-on the median at 36%. However, if you’re taking cost into account, the Wells Stainless Steel Camper Mug (Q80793) has an impressive Cost Efficiency Score of 346.

Best Mid-Size Tumbler (15oz to 25oz)

Thor Copper Insulated Bottle (Q70144) or Emperor Vacuum Tumbler (Q63639)

As noted already, the Thor Copper Insulated Bottle was our overall winner for loss percentage. However, if you want a sliding lid rather than a twist-off, the Emperor is also in this size range – and its lower price gives it a better Cost Efficiency Score of 295 to the Thor’s 339.

A photo of a large red tumbler with a black handle and black straw on a blue wave graphic background printed with YOUR DESIGN HERE in white on the front.

Best Large Tumbler (25oz+)

Stanley Quencher Tumbler (Q94373)

Four of our five large tumblers made the top 10 for loss percentages (i.e. they had low loss percentages), with the Stanley claiming second place overall. That’s even more impressive when you learn that it holds 30oz. For the price conscious, the Stainless Steel Grip Travel Mug (Q70185) has the best Cost Efficiency Score for this size category, at 315.

The Bottom Line

A tumbler is a coffee-to-go essential, especially if you like to take your time to sip your coffee, not pound it like a marathon runner with a cup of Gatorade. And while steel double-walled tumblers are your best bet for maximum heat-preserving efficiency, you can find one in the $15 to $20 range that performs close to – if not better than — premium models. (But you can also just buy the Stanley, we get it.)

Q#	PRODUCT NAME	LOSS PERCENTAGE	COST EFFICIENCY SCORE	VIEW PRODUCT
Q70190	Insulated Steel Travel Mug	40%	153	View Product
Q72526	Derby Sports Mug	44%	161
Q76209	Roadmaster Travel Tumbler	42%	206	View Product
Q70202	Double Wall Clear Tumbler	41%	213	View Product
Q82595	Eco-Friendly Wheat Travel Mug	47%	215	View Product
Q63639	Emperor Vacuum Tumbler	30%	295	View Product
Q70185	Stainless Steel Grip Travel Mug	30%	315	View Product
Q64760	Mondo Insulated Tumbler	36%	318	View Product
Q84536	York Tumbler with Cork Base	36%	327	View Product
Q70144	Thor Copper Insulated Bottle	21%	339	View Product
Q90739	Intrepid Stainless Steel Tumbler	23%	344	View Product
Q80793	Wells Stainless Steel Camper Mug	43%	346	View Product
Q71025	Stainless Steel Tumbler with Push Lid	31%	390	View Product
Q70606	Ceramic Tumbler with Silicone Lid	45%	432	View Product
Q59793	Himalayan Vacuum Tumbler	36%	478	View Product
Q69391	Colma Tumbler	30%	486	View Product
Q65317	KOOZIE Triple Vacuum Tumblers	40%	727	View Product
Q94373	Stanley Quencher Tumbler	22%	1149	View Product
Q98216	CamelBak Thrive Tumbler	30%	1390	View Product
Q77977	Yeti Rambler Tumbler	36%	1400	View Product
–	Paper Cup	53%	–	–